AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 198 wordsHeard learned counsel for respondent no. 2/applicant, Mr. Vibhav Srivastava and learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant in respect of MAs filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 seeking his deletion from the array of respondents. Both the parties had advanced various submission in respect of their respective case in a similar matter bearing M A No. 76 of 2021 in B P No. 107 of 2021 and after hearing the parties, the prayer for deletion was allowed vide an order dated 9.11.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent no. 2 has relied upon the said order.
Considering the similarity and the issue and all relevant facts and circumstances as well as similar submissions, the concerned MAs are allowed following the order dated 9.11.2021. The concerned MAs are allowed. Respondent no. 2 in concerned petitions shall stand deleted.
Revised memo of parties should be filed within two weeks. Interim order sahll continue until further orders.
As prayed on behalf of the petitioner, three weeks' further time is granted for filing affidavit of service on respondent no. 1 in connection with M.A. No. 152 of 2021 in BP No. 164 of 2021.
Post the matter under the same head on 12.1.2022.